Anyone just received CRT letter 'reminding' CC'ers to move?

[Bettie Boo]

 

That is not what was said in the FOI response.

 

Lets see if BassPlayer has renewed his licence recently - BassPlayer ?

 

We renewed ours on last Friday, this will be our third renewal.

 

The first two were for 6 months each this one being for a year. But since we aren't planning on having our mail forwarded to us for another 4 - 6 weeks we'll have to wait to see if we've also received one of the letters.

[Tony Dunkley]

Yes I think it sounds reasonable. It is giving fair warning that action may be taken if you do not comply. If the above 12 miles mentioned above is anywhere near correct then I am amazed that anyone can claim to be a CC yet fail to cruise 12 miles?

 

Ian.

 

No distances are specified in the letter that was the subject of the OP . . . . . they're not just moveable goalposts, they're goalposts that aren't even there at the moment, but will be moved if they ever are put up.

Edited March 3, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[Alan de Enfield]

For anyone that wants to read it - here are the C&RT internal emails explaining to the EO's what the new system is and how it is applied (84 pages)

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/continuous_cruising_enforcement#incoming-613637

 

Interesting to note that in an email from Denise Yelland to the EO's on the subject of CCers believed to be not complying she states :

 

"...................please remember that as they have had a welcome letter they do not get a Pre CC we go straight to CC1.........."

[mrsmelly]

Maybe some of them can't afford it.

 

Here we go again If they cannot afford to comply with the very few very simple rules then quite simply they cannot afford to boat. If someone cannot afford insurance and Vehicle excise licence then they cannot afford to run a car, the list is endless. I would quite like a new Aston martin every six months but cannot afford one so I aint got one..............etc etc

 

Tim

[bassplayer]

 

It is now expanded to all CCers.

 

"Hardly moved" is less than 5 miles per year (Classed as a Red flag on your records)

"Moved, but not enough" is less than 12 miles per year.(classed as an amber flag on your records)

 

It was all explained a few days ago when someone posted an 84 page response to a FOI showing the new procedures.

 

Anyone receiving the letter is 'on the radar' for having not met the requirements - if you get one then you are under review.

 

BassPlayer - can you provide evidence to satisfy the board that you are moving sufficiently ?

Yes, lots of time stamped photos and a log book. If I'm on the radar after having travelled way in excess of 500 miles in each of the last two years then what's going on? Maybe they're picking on those who are vocal about trying to protect the interests of those less fortunate.

 

If CRT want to force everyone to have a home mooring then I'd sell the boat and buy a camper van because I don't want to stay in the same place. When I bought the boat to live on there wasn't a problem. Now a handful of idiots are trying to spoil it for everyone. Good luck to them!

[adam1uk]

A really stupid letter, you've not moved far enough, but we can't tell you how far is, Erm, hang on, Erm..........

We will remove your licence though if you don't travel at least.......?

 

CRT are on a hiding to nothing. For every person who's calling on them to define a distance, there's another who says ...

 

 

You think that sounds reasonable . . . . comply with an ill-defined and unlawful distance requirement that we can change on a whim at any time or we'll force you off the canal system . . . . . as an example of moveable goal posts, that's one of the best you'll see.

 

that they're not entitled by law to define a distance.

[bassplayer]

 

Here we go again If they cannot afford to comply with the very few very simple rules then quite simply they cannot afford to boat. If someone cannot afford insurance and Vehicle excise licence then they cannot afford to run a car, the list is endless. I would quite like a new Aston martin every six months but cannot afford one so I aint got one..............etc etc

 

Tim

Here we go again. So you think those less fortunate shouldn't have the choice between living in a council house or a boat? How short sighted.

[jenlyn]

Here we go again. So you think those less fortunate shouldn't have the choice between living in a council house or a boat? How short sighted.

Life can be very simple for some.

 

The problem is, jobs used to be a plenty, there was no such thing as zero hours, further education used to be free, there were council houses for those that were in need or on low income. This has all gone of course, but some still live in a bygone era, imagining it's still as simple as when they were younger.

It's easy to sit back and pontificate when your peering through old glasses.

[bassplayer]

 

That is not what was said in the FOI response.

 

Lets see if BassPlayer has renewed his licence recently - BassPlayer ?

I renewed a couple of months ago but then again you probably knew that!

[jenlyn]

All CCer's will get the letters over the next few months, I've just rang and asked.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

CRT are on a hiding to nothing. For every person who's calling on them to define a distance, there's another who says ...

 

 

that they're not entitled by law to define a distance.

Entitled or not, that is how they are enforcing. If they tell a boater he/she is not moving far enough to comply then they must be able to say how far is enough!

 

The following is an extract from Notes of Boating Organisations Meeting with CRT: 19 Jan 2015 -

 

DY described a provisional revised enforcement regime for CC-ers. It was agreed that the proposals would be kept confidential until they had been discussed with the Trust’s Board and a final proposal produced, if agreed

Points clarified were:

• the current information relating to boaters without a home mooring are:

16 % of c.5,400 CC-ers were recorded cruising within a range of <5 kms, and 66% in a range of <20 kms. DY stated these were top line figures that were still being verified – they include some boats licensed later in the year - but they were likely to be a reasonable indication of the numbers with a very limited range of movement.

• RP and DY agreed that the Trust should develop a clear response to the question ‘how far should I travel to comply?’, and this is being drafted.

 

 

Of course, the history of this is that the Trust wanted the boating organisations to say ‘how far should I travel to comply?’ but failed to get agreement.

 

... now it seems like they don't have the guts to do so themselves.

[bassplayer]

All CCer's will get the letters over the next few months, I've just rang and asked.

Thank God for that...I was just about to put my boat on the market...

[bassplayer]

So there are now 3 groups of CC-ers.

 

Those who already enjoy the luxury of being able to cruise non stop in one direction....stopping in an area for a small amount of time and never to be in that radar area again.

 

Those who cannot stand the idea of living tied up, not moving, with other boats on either side, (a marina) but do need to circle around a wide area (eg Birmingham, London), in order to stay within reach of work.

 

Those who may have been CC-ing, (let's say a young couple), love the boating lifestyle, but have now had a new child. Not earning enough to pay marina fees, but needing to put the kid in a nursery, they will try to move "enough" to retain their boating lifestyle for as long as possible.

 

 

The first group of CC-ers will look at what CRT are doing and say..."no one should moan"...if you're a genuine CC-er it wont affect you.

The 2nd group of CC-ers will feel guilty they aren't in the 1st group, but will be happy they aren't in the 3rd group.

The 3rd group of CC-ers will feel guilty all the time, even though they're doing their best under the circumstances.

I'd say it was simpler than that. There are those who want freedom to do what they like and respect the freedom of those around them....and those who don't....

[Graham Davis]

 

I "think" that would apply if it was sent via registered/recorded mail or where a signature was required for delivery. However, if a piece of post was sent via normal snail mail, there would be no proof it actually reached you.

 

Email can be set up to show it was "read/opened", we had this at the last company I worked for so the technology is defiantly out there, you could also request an automatic reply to show the email was opened.

 

But at the end of the day, they wouldn't be able to get anything to me that required a signature anyway, unless it was hand delivered via the towpath, as we live on the boat and are proper ccer's (not meant to be as condescending as it could sound) just that we move around a fair bit

 

A Summons is deemed served when it is posted in the Royal Mail. It does not need to be sent by any other method than the normal post. It does not need to be sent Recorded or Signed For. Therefore any Notice can take the same Precedent.

[MtB]

 

A Summons is deemed served when it is posted in the Royal Mail. It does not need to be sent by any other method than the normal post. It does not need to be sent Recorded or Signed For. Therefore any Notice can take the same Precedent.

 

 

My understanding too. Proof of posting is accepted by a court as proof of service.

 

Paradoxically sending by recorded delivery ('signed for') might be great for proving the notice was delivered, but if the recipient is expecting such a notice they are likely to refuse to sign for it, or claim the sig is not theirs in which the sender is worse off than if they'd sent by normal post.

 

 

MtB

[mayalld]

Here we go again. So you think those less fortunate shouldn't have the choice between living in a council house or a boat? How short sighted.

 

Whether less fortunate or less industrious, it is a fact of life that those with less resources have less choices.

[bassplayer]

Whether less fortunate or less industrious, it is a fact of life that those with less resources have less choices.

That's very true Dave, but it costs the tax payer more to re home them in a council flat/house (especially in London). The problem is that some of those who are fortunate in life aren't sharing out their wealth and experience to those who are less fortunate. The divide is getting bigger. As for p takers, we all agree about that.

 

I do agree CRT is in a rock and a hard place but as I've said before we are ALL responsible for the welfare of those around us (and it's not just about money either). Desperate people take desperate measures, nobody is safe from that fact.

[Midnight]

Lol have you tried as a boater without a home mooring? Maybe you would be prepared to help I have 3 boaters I am trying to help claim benefits at present and your expertise would be very helpful

John my good lady is a housing benefits manager she see's her role as to get the maximum amount of benefit for her customers that the legislation allows. If you need help PM me and Ill ask her if she can offer helpful advice.

[costalot]

So there are now 3 groups of CC-ers.

 

Those who already enjoy the luxury of being able to cruise non stop in one direction....stopping in an area for a small amount of time and never to be in that radar area again.

 

Those who cannot stand the idea of living tied up, not moving, with other boats on either side, (a marina) but do need to circle around a wide area (eg Birmingham, London), in order to stay within reach of work.

 

Those who may have been CC-ing, (let's say a young couple), love the boating lifestyle, but have now had a new child. Not earning enough to pay marina fees, but needing to put the kid in a nursery, they will try to move "enough" to retain their boating lifestyle for as long as possible.

 

 

The first group of CC-ers will look at what CRT are doing and say..."no one should moan"...if you're a genuine CC-er it wont affect you.

The 2nd group of CC-ers will feel guilty they aren't in the 1st group, but will be happy they aren't in the 3rd group.

The 3rd group of CC-ers will feel guilty all the time, even though they're doing their best under the circumstances.

Group 2 and 3 do not appear to be moving bona fide for navigation in accordance with their licence T&C and the relevant legislation

[KevMc]

That's very true Dave, but it costs the tax payer more to re home them in a council flat/house (especially in London). The problem is that some of those who are fortunate in life aren't sharing out their wealth and experience to those who are less fortunate. The divide is getting bigger. As for p takers, we all agree about that.

 

I do agree CRT is in a rock and a hard place but as I've said before we are ALL responsible for the welfare of those around us (and it's not just about money either). Desperate people take desperate measures, nobody is safe from that fact.

 

BUT when agencies that aren't specifically responsible and aren't properly geared up to provide for the welfare of others get involved it removes the pressure from those who are supposed to take care of people and/or hides the needy from the correct agency which can mean that people don't get the proper support or it ends up with the 'wrong agency' giving up at a stage when its too late for the proper agency to get involved effectively ... which is a long winded way of saying - stick to what you are supposed to be doing and leave it to the experts to do what you aren't supposed to be doing

[mayalld]

That's very true Dave, but it costs the tax payer more to re home them in a council flat/house (especially in London). The problem is that some of those who are fortunate in life aren't sharing out their wealth and experience to those who are less fortunate. The divide is getting bigger. As for p takers, we all agree about that.

 

 

Part of the problem in discussing this is that people use loaded terminology (fortunate/less fortunate)

 

There is an assumption that those who lack the resources to fund all that they want are simply unfortunate, whilst those who have the resources to fund more than others have are fortunate.

[bassplayer]

BUT when agencies that aren't specifically responsible and aren't properly geared up to provide for the welfare of others get involved it removes the pressure from those who are supposed to take care of people and/or hides the needy from the correct agency which can mean that people don't get the proper support or it ends up with the 'wrong agency' giving up at a stage when its too late for the proper agency to get involved effectively ... which is a long winded way of saying - stick to what you are supposed to be doing and leave it to the experts to do what you aren't supposed to be doing

Sorry if anyone has read this before. I know two people who had permission from a land owner to moor on his lake. The council told the landowner he didn't have permission to let residential boaters moor on his lake. The council then had to declare them both homeless and gave them both council flats at the tax payers expense.

 

There are experts who don't know what they are doing. Nobody won that situation as the live aboards were happy living on the boat and the land owner was very happy them being there. Another own goal story by those who tinker.

[KevMc]

Sorry if anyone has read this before. I know two people who had permission from a land owner to moor on his lake. The council told the landowner he didn't have permission to let residential boaters moor on his lake. The council then had to declare them both homeless and gave them both council flats at the tax payers expense.

 

There are experts who don't know what they are doing. Nobody won that situation as the live aboards were happy living on the boat and the land owner was very happy them being there. Another own goal story by those who tinker.

 

Looks like a case of right hand not knowing what the left hand is up to

[bassplayer]

Part of the problem in discussing this is that people use loaded terminology (fortunate/less fortunate)

 

There is an assumption that those who lack the resources to fund all that they want are simply unfortunate, whilst those who have the resources to fund more than others have are fortunate.

Yes, it's not black or white and words mean different things to different people. Real experience is everything and none of us know what it's like to be in the other persons shoes.

[cotswoldsman]

Entitled or not, that is how they are enforcing. If they tell a boater he/she is not moving far enough to comply then they must be able to say how far is enough!

 

The following is an extract from Notes of Boating Organisations Meeting with CRT: 19 Jan 2015 -

 

 

Of course, the history of this is that the Trust wanted the boating organisations to say how far should I travel to comply? but failed to get agreement.

 

... now it seems like they don't have

the guts to do so themselves.

Some might think that they wanted the Associations to come with a minimum distance so they could stand up in court and say "the boating Associations are all agreed that boater without a home mooring should move around least *** miles a month"

John my good lady is a housing benefits manager she see's her role as to get the maximum amount of benefit for her customers that the legislation allows. If you need help PM me and Ill ask her if she can offer helpful advice.

Thanks for that will do that when on my laptop

All CCer's will get the letters over the next few months, I've just rang and asked.

Hope they do not let MtP know when they receive one or they will be accused of non compliance Edited March 3, 2015 by cotswoldsman